5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and, at the time of the latest information from him, lived in Burgas.
6.  In 1993 the applicant became the chairman of the board of a credit and savings cooperative (popular bank) – Popular Bank‑Pekov – having its registered office in Burgas.
7.  In 1994 the applicant became the chairman of the board of the Union of the Popular Banks, having its registered office in Burgas.
8.  On an unspecified date in mid-1995 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant in relation with his duties as chairman of the board of Popular Bank‑Pekov.
9.  On 15 August 1995 the investigation authorities requested the Nesebar District Court to attach certain assets belonging to the applicant and to Popular Bank‑Pekov, with a view to securing their forfeiture in the event the applicant was convicted. In a decision of 21 August 1995 the Nesebar District Court allowed that request.
10.  On 25 August 1995 an investigator at the Burgas Regional Investigation Service attached further property belonging to Popular Bank-Pekov.
11.  On 29 August 1995 the applicant was charged with having engaged in banking business without the requisite licence, contrary to Article 252 § 2 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”).
12.  On 3 January 1996 new charges were preferred against the applicant. It was alleged that he had misappropriated 65,000,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL) from the deposits made in Popular Bank‑Pekov, contrary to Article 203 § 1 of the CC.
13.  It seems that witnesses were questioned on 4 January, 30 and 31 July, 17 and 23 September, 17 and 22 October, 4 November, and 6, 9, 10 and 15 December 1996, 14 and 18 January, 20 and 28 February, 20 March, and 4 and 7 August 1997. On an unspecified date an accounting expert report was drawn up.
14.  On 4 February 1998 the applicant was charged anew under Articles 202 § 2, 219 § 1, 252 § 2 and 282 § 2 of the CC.
15.  On 7 July 1998 the Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office decided to drop the charges under Articles 203 § 1 and 219 § 1 of the CC. On 15 December 1998 its decision was quashed by the Burgas Appellate Prosecutor’s Office insofar as it concerned the charges under Article 219 § 1 of the CC, and upheld, insofar as it concerned the charges under Article 203 § 1 of the CC.
16.  On 10 July 2001 the applicant was charged anew under Articles 201, 202 §§ 1 and 2, 219 § 1, 252 §§ 1 and 2, and 282 § 2 of the CC.
17.  On 18 December 2001 the charges against the applicant were amended once again to include counts under Articles 201, 202 §§ 1 and 2, 219 § 1, 252 §§ 1 and 2, and 282 § 2 of the CC.
18.  On 3 July 2003 the applicant was charged anew under Articles 202 § 2, 219 § 4, 252 § 2 and 282 § 2 of the CC.
19.  On 8 July 2003 the Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office submitted an indictment against the applicant to the Burgas Regional Court.
20.  The first hearing, listed for 27 October 2003, was adjourned at the request of the applicant, who presented a doctor’s note to the effect that he was ill and could not attend, and argued that the copy of the indictment which had been sent to him had pages missing. Another reason for the adjournment was that most of the prosecution’s witnesses did not show up.
21.  A hearing scheduled for 12 January 2004 was adjourned by reason of the failure of a number of witnesses to show up. The court ordered a new accounting expert report to be drawn up by three experts.
22.  A hearing planned for 5 April 2004 could not take place because the accounting expert report had not yet been drawn up and a number of witnesses were absent. The court fined some of the missing witnesses and ordered that they be brought by force to the next hearing.
23.  At the next hearing, which took place on 12, 13 and 14 July 2004, the applicant requested that the case be remitted for the correction of alleged procedural mistakes made during the preliminary investigation. His request was denied. The court heard the applicant and approximately fifteen witnesses. However, as a number of other witnesses were absent, the court adjourned the case. It gave leave to the parties to ask the experts additional questions.
24.  A hearing took place on 15 November 2004. The court heard several witnesses, but as a number of others were absent, it adjourned the case.
25.  A hearing listed for 7 February 2005 was adjourned at the request of the applicant, who presented a doctor’s note to the effect that he was ill and could not attend.
26.  A hearing took place on 25 April 2005. The court heard several witnesses. The prosecution stated that certain amounts allegedly misappropriated and squandered by the applicant had been wrongly noted down in the indictment by reason of an error in the calculations. In reply the applicant submitted that the correction of the mistakes in the indictment constituted an amendment of the charges against him and requested an adjournment in order to prepare his defence. The court agreed and adjourned the case to 27 April 2005.
27.  On 27 April 2005 the court heard one witness and adjourned the case at the request of the applicant, holding that in view of the large volume of written evidence, he should be given more time to prepare his defence after the amendment of the charges, even though this amendment consisted only in the correction of an error in the amounts noted down in the indictment.
28.  At the time of the latest information from the parties (10 May 2005) the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending before the Burgas Regional Court; a hearing had been listed for 20 June 2005.
29.  On 29 August 1995, when the applicant was first charged, the investigator dealing with his case ordered him to pay bail in the amount of BGL 500,000. The applicant appealed to the Burgas District Prosecutor’s Office, stating that this sum was too high and he could not pay it. In a decision of 11 September 1995 the Burgas District Prosecutor’s Office dismissed his appeal, reasoning that he owned sufficient assets and that the amount was justified in view of the gravity of the offence alleged against him. On the appeals of the applicant that decision was upheld by the Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office, but later, on 28 November 1995, varied by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office, which reduced the bail amount to BGL 250,000.
30.  On 3 January 1996, when preferring new charges of misappropriation of funds against the applicant, the investigator of the Burgas Regional Investigation Service in charge of the case ordered his pre‑trial detention. She noted, without providing further detail, that the offence alleged against him was particularly serious, and that there was a risk that he could imperil the investigation. The investigator’s decision was confirmed by a prosecutor of the Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office the same day.
31.  On the appeal of the applicant, on 5 January 1996 the Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office decided to release him on bail, citing his bad health requiring special medical treatment. It seems that the applicant paid the bail amount – BGL 250,000 – the same day and was released.
32.  On 6 May 1996 the investigator in charge of the applicant’s case once again ordered his pre‑trial detention. She reasoned that he had failed to show up for questioning despite having been duly summoned on 26 March 1996. Moreover, on 2, 3 and 4 April 1996 it had proved impossible to find him at the address indicated by him in Sofia. The applicant had also failed to report to the Burgas Regional Investigation Service every second Thursday of the month, as ordered by the investigator. It could thus be inferred that he had failed to show up without good cause and that it was therefore necessary to take him into custody. That decision was confirmed by a prosecutor of the Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office on 16 May 1996.
33.  In May and June 1996 the police conducted initially a local and afterwards a nation‑wide search for the applicant.
34.  On 5 July 1996 the applicant was arrested. It was found that on 16 May 1996 he had changed his address without notifying the investigation authorities.
35.  The applicant appealed against his pre‑trial detention to the Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office. In her observations in reply to the appeal the investigator in charge of his case stated that the his pre-trial detention was mandatory, as he had been charged with a “serious intentional offence” and there were no reasons to apply the exception provided for by paragraph of 2 of Article 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”).
36.  On 6 August 1996 the Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office upheld the decision to keep the applicant in custody. It found that he had failed to notify the investigator in charge of his case of his change of address and to report to the Burgas Regional Investigation Service on several dates despite the instructions to that effect. On the other hand, the applicant’s state of health did not require his release. In consideration of this and of the fact that the applicant had been charged with an offence under Article 203 § 1 of the CC, i.e. a serious intentional offence, it was justified to maintain him in detention.
37.  On the appeal of the applicant, the Chief Prosecutor’s Office upheld this decision on 13 September 1996.
38.  During the following months the applicant underwent treatment in the prison hospital and was examined several times by medical doctors.
39.  On 2 October 1996 the Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office decided to release the applicant from pre‑trial detention and place him under house arrest. It found that his remaining in custody could have an irreversible negative impact on his health. The attempts to treat him in the prison hospital had proved futile, whereas his state of health required immediate specialised hospital treatment.
40.  On 10 October 1996 the applicant informed the investigator in charge of his case that he had to be admitted to a hospital in Sofia. He advised the investigator of his address in Sofia and obliged to report to the Burgas Regional Investigation Service every second and fourth Thursday of the month.
41.  On 4 February 1998 and 10 July and 18 December 2001 the investigator in charge of the applicant’s case confirmed his house arrest of her own motion, without giving reasons.
42.  During the period when the applicant was under house arrest, he changed his address several times for health reasons and because of difficulties in finding employment, each time notifying the investigator in charge of his case by mail.
43.  The applicant was released from house arrest on 3 July 2003.